The Sun. — London, England, 1808-12-17 00:00:00

• DODDS V. UPSTONE. This was an appeal to 'set aside the decree' of his Hotionr, the , Master of the Rolls, in this cause. The circutintances of the case were, that Mrs. Dodds, the Plaintiff, oh her Marriage to her bus - band, had a deed of settlement executed, settling . : on ber,the residtie of the interest of certain lease hold property, after the death of her husband. The Defendant wa§ the trus.tee in the deed of settle ment. Dodds, the husband of. the Plaintiff, used her ex remely ill, spent her fortune, and ultimately, in the • year 1801, turned her out of doors. He went to the Defendant, and prevailed upon hint to , olve p the deed of settlement, and sold the lease ._ •hold property ; and on his being afterwards asked -what he had done with the settlement-? he answer he had boiled it, and made soup of it. The Piaintiff afterward.; sued him in Doctors'-commons, for his NrSonal ill usage;of her, and she was allowed alimony ; to avoid the payment of which he had a commission (ff bankruptcy issued against him. In -the year ;806, the . Plaintiff filed her bill against the •IYelendant for his breach of trust in giving up the deed of settlement, and-his Holm& the Master of the }toils decreed, that the Master should calculate what W 3.4 the amount of the interest diat-the Plaintiffhad its th_ leaseho:d * property, and that the Defendant s‘‘ou!..l Pav the amount, for his' neglect in not per forming the trust. Mr. 11.. RT, Counsel for the Defendant, supported the appeal, on the ground, that his Honour had given gi.,.aler relief than she asked for. It only pmyed, " That the trustee might be obliged to_ 1.1,;.2. doe dilince., in gaining . the possession for the Defen d,int." It did not cOntetnpla:p that the ' trustee Richard Wilson, Sir Richard Phillips, and John Ucklebridge; his clerk, deposed to their hating been with 114 r. Gillett on the evening of, or the Morning after the fire that they had then seen the meino- - randurn _book, and that there was no mention made in it of an insurance • of goods on trust. Mr. Day, .Secretary to the Imperial Fire Office, was present . at the first reading of the items, but had not attended. , to he recollected nothing of goods on, trust. Ho did pot consider his Office at that time as liable to pay any money. to Gillett, but advised him if he made' an application to their generosity to confine himself .to - his individual property. - Willh m Mitchel, who superintended the De-. • :The information in this case was brought by Mr. Hague against Mr. \Voodtall, not upon filiedged grOundS' Of any thing of a treasonable, seditiOns•,, or. immoral tendencY in the matter printed. (which was: a sort of enigmatical prospe..-Atis.., to a periodical pamphlet, proposed - to be published, .reipe6tirig the author of certain anonymous letters which' have lately appeared in print;under the signature of " An, Englishman," refleding on the state of the British arniy), but Merely under au allegation that• \Voudfall had punted theTrospeaus, and had not" affixed his name thereto, as by law required. After hearing Mr. WIGtEr, on the part of the informer, and GURNEY, on that of Mr. Wood= LUNDON: Printed ky RIC:IARD ii‘Ritis, of No, 4, Muth:a-court, Bow-street; and puloli.shedbY WiittA!..l ARmios.R. ScitsrPs, South Moiton strelq, f;rosvp. , ,ir-,sFplatte ' the Suii-Ot:- . t!cri.. No. Strand; where ddrep tisements, Orders tor the Paver iftterF for the Editor, 84c, (Post-Iglid/ L aLressed.. e -7 ~ y LAIP REPORT. COURT OF KING'; CWCII, Dm 16. COSENS V. DAVIES. Mr. GAaaow ;vied that this was an anion of tro ver to recover the value of 27 dOzen of Madeira wine, under the following circuinstanCes. The • Plaintiff. was a West 11.,klia Gentlernan, anclthe De feldant a -Surgeott gt Mortlake, in Surrey. The Pliiintitf was the particular friend ola Mrs. 'Phillips, deceased,-and had previou-iy to aiming to England, committed to tier charge the wine in questiOn. She kept it 'safely• till her death, 'when her house at Mortlake ‘‘. bequeathed to . the Platritiff for life, who, till his arrived in England, caused 'lt to be let to the Deft2ndant. The Defendant, when* took the house, toad of this wine of the Plaintiff's, 'and pro mlsed to take the tharge of it : but npon - the Plaintiff's arrival England, aid apOication to the Defendant for his wine, a great: part of it %,vas wanting, and the Learued Counsels would prove that it' was the De fendant tnyisolf who drank it. The depfsit and -feceipt . .of the wine, at Mrs. In April,' 'lBO3, was first' proved, and that.it , 4 3.3 never touched curing her ;or for five ,or six mont i lis ;Ate' wards, tilt November Igoo, wl,tn the kev of the cellar was delivered to the D:fend:mt. This, N,lr. Jones, Mrs, Phillips's EXeciator, scot to the DAendant, he thdught by -the coach. m„ c servant Of Mrs. Phillips, was in the witiCcellar for a. particular Purppie, once after the Deiendant was in possession, and . it was the : ,Defendant who gave her the . key of it she lOcked the et;llar, and returned the key to the. Defendant, The Djendant told her that Mr. Jones hid sent him the Key by a letter ; and a letter to. the present witne,s, in. w hieli Mr. Jones had mentioned this circumstance, was produced and read. A lad who lived in the Defendant's service for seven weeks said, he once saw the Defendant take, one of the bottles of-'the wine in' question from the hamper in the cellar. The Defendant generally had • white wine on his table after dinner. • Mr. Lambie, miphew to the Plaintiff, said, that the 'Plaintiff and he went to The Defendant's in January,' 1807.. They found one of the harripers containing the Plaintio; wine quite empty, and the rest openetland deficient. • A verdict wasinimedtately found .;•r the Plaintiff. Damages, 5 51. 18g. VALLEtiCE V. DEWER. This Was an "ali,,r; upon a policy. of insurance, on a Vessel,- the Courier, aCand from NeAkfound . land to Portngal and England. 'The policy .was • iffedeclin the month of August, 1807, while the was at NeWfountlland, and she did not sail oti her .voyage home till November, when she foun dered at sea, and was lost. The' defence was, that the. Plaintiff did,not, at the time of making theinsorance,,make known to the D fendant that the vessel was. to be employed on the liars!:, before her return, and consquently exposed to the ( - Unger, Of Coming home in winter, instead, of. ,t In.effected. - -ime, when the policy was effeed.-, It was prOved, &tiff& trial, to bethe Custom 'for yes, se-is going 0.11. to .I\ l o4otilidlaud in the surnmer, either to go on the Bank fishery, or else to go short voya g es -to the coast of America, before- they re turned to Europe with their cargoes. • The Court laid it'dOwti, that Where an a& to be tone was conformable to a•ci.tstom generally known, it was no concealment not to specify 't hat ac, add accordingly the Jury .found a verdid for the .Plain tiff—Damages. 1421: BRYANT V. MACISINZIES, AND CO- The,Pidintitf had been part owner of a ship with one of the Defendants. There were three of the same name partners in trade, at.d as such partners, they. aacd as agents ,to the vessel, and•as such set tled their accounts with . the Piaintiff for his share. In theseacebuiits they charged him, with disburse ruents before the credits they had upon certain ar-' tides were expired, and befote which time they had become insolvent.' T.he Plaintiff was obliged to pay for these articles to the furniShers, and he brought the present action to recover the amount from Opt li‘lendants. -This i.vas resisted—first, as the adibit would - not lie, as they v. ere merely agents; i nt,i also that having compounded for 10s. in the pound, (Ivey' soul. not voluntarily give. the full amount Of his demand, supv;sing him liable, to the injury of the other creditors,- The Court was of opinion the adion was well laid, and the Plaintiff entitled to recover. Verdia fur the Plainid—Damages :3201. COURT OF, C:IANCERY, LINCOLN'S INN, Dzc. should make restitution.' If thn Plaintiff h4cOn teinpiateo it, 'sue nti tyt, by a, small amendment, have madc the.rtcord coMpetent to that relief, which would have given the Defendant an opportunity of absweriNg w:th more industry. "The Defendant had answered, that he tuoerstoud and believed the Plait;i; tiff, was privy to the . deed of settlement.being given up. If she wa3 not, 'why did not sne call upon the" Defendant to perform and at,t upon his trust, when she was turned out of doors 'in 180 Although he ham :;iven up the deed, it would have put him on.' the alert, and it he - did not recover the' deed, he might have secured so much of her husband's pro perty,- before he became insolvent, as to have se= • cured her interest. There was something suspi-' cions, as although the property was sold in 1800, ye:l the bill was not filed until 1806 ; why let six• years Oa* ? The Learned Counsel ako contended, that the assignees - Of the Plaintiffs husband ought to hive been Made parties to the cause, "as it Was ,Verily behevediby . the Defendant, that there were assets - of the bankrupt's in their, hands. He concluded, by observing, from the view he had taken of the case, he did not think the record Would justify such a decree as that given by the Master of the Rolls ; he therefore trusted that his 'Lordship would set it aside. , _ • Sir SAMUEL ROsmi,y, Counsel for the Plaintiff, contended that the decree of 'his Honodr was strictly in conformity, with the' record. That the bill prayed for general . relief, and the decree gave that. The Defendant adMitted, by his answer, that he ht - id given up the deed of settlement, btit thtit he .con ceived it was with the privity of the Plaintiff; that question had been sent. to the Aister to inquire into, and he had reported that it o.as not- with her knowledge then surely the Plaintiff had a right - to suffer for his :iwn.negleet ; he had every opportu nity of inquiring from the - Plaintiff herself. •It was his duty to 'have guarded her interest, and to have watched that there was no nutdue infloence made use et towards her, if she even 'had consented to give op the deed of :settlement. The Defendant was a So licitor of -that COurt, aiij could not be ignorant of what was his duty, He 'could - not perceive bow it could be made to appear,' that the assignees were necessary parties to this cause ; if they had assets of the bankrupt's in their hands, the Defendant might recuvt-r them, , but the Plaintiff could not. His Honour the Master of the - Rolls - considered all th due attention, before he came tiS iot - t, and -be , rusted the Court would see no rea,on his decree should be altered. Mr. HART replied. • Tilt: LORD CHANCELLOR observed, was 'of opinion that. his Honour had given a correct decree. It was admitted- that the deed - . was lodged in the hands of the Defendant, the trustee, and - he had, given it lip to Dodds; this was such a piece of-neg ligence, there could be no excuse for if. It - was his duty to- . have seen what use he made of if; but, this' be:also-nedected. - He was not made a trustee to betray - the ~rOperty of the wife, but.to protekt - it 5. instead at which he gave ,the hUsband the:effe&nal means of, seliircg the premises. It, was not for hum to say, that the Defendant; as the trustee, might re cover against the purchaser: lie was fully "of opi nion there was enough on the-record to entitle the to a decree. Whether the assignees might or ought not to be parties, it was not in point of form, in the power of the DAenditnt to bring that qUestion then forward; but, in his opinion, they ought not. He therefore confirmed the decree of his Honour the Master of the Rolls. -. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, D. i 6, MAWMAN' V. GILLETT. This' was an action brought to recover the value of the paper furnished by the Piaintiff to the a.l - tor. the purpose of printing the Travels of AnarcSarsis, and another work, which paper had been destroyed in the fire which some time ago con sinned Mr. Gillett's premises. This was 'the third trial upon the same ground. The first action was brought upon the custom of the trade, by which it was contended by the' Plaintiff the Defendant was liable. Both parties had then come unprepared, in • consequence of which a second trial had been 'order ed by the Court. The question of usage, whether, by the general course of the trade, the Printer ought to have insured the goods he bad in trust from the Bookseller • was there fully considered, and upon the whale tire Jury found that it was not the general usage for the PrMter to ifistrre the goods Ist trust, and on that .ground gave the verdict _ for the De fendant—stating it, however, Ong the Defendant was liable upon an implied agreement. The present Wiwi was brought upon this agreement. • A Mr. Wilkie, who was a partner with Maw man in this work, deposed, that on the occasion of 'Hamilton's fire, Gillett had declared; that all -the Booksellers who dedlt with him were safe, as he was fully insured. Patterson, -an apprentice of Ma‘V man, and Newby, a clerk to the Plaintiff, proved, a conversation to the same area, between Mawman and Gillett, in the shop of the former, from ,Which it wa's intended •to draw the inference, that 'by the particular mode in which the Defendant dealt with I. his customers, he considered himself as responSilile. To support this argument as to the usual' mode of dealing praelised by the Defendant, a clerk of 'the. Plicenix Fire OtEc - e was called, who read - some in, surances trout the year 1790 to 1802; effeoed by Gillett, in which goods iii trust .were specified.!-- Bonsor, a Stationer, and Hamilton, the Printer, were also called, who deposed to the best of their belief, that, soon after the fire the Defendant •had read to them from a memorandum-book an item of goods tnl trust, insured in the Imperial Fire Office. — This was the suns of the material evidence fur the Plaintiff. 2, fendant's Printing-office, depsed to the cirOmstance of Gillett's having received. a higher price for his printing from Lane, who mite; described 'as the movel mar, in congidetation of his insuring hii property, ftorn which it was designed to infei-, that.Gillett only insured in particular cases. Considerable doubt was thrown upon this by the statement,, that Lane had paid an additionalshidiug . upon every seventeen shillings for 'this_ purpose, which would make the rate of insurance more than 5 per cent. ; whereas, in tact, it - was only seven shillings and sixpence in the tool. Mitchel further spoke to ,the slowness with which the printing of this work had gone on, in consequence of the dilatory manner in which they were furnished.with copy by Mc. Beaumont, the editor. One Bird, :a warehouseman of the Defendant, proved his having, some time before the fire, desired Herbert, Mawmnn's warehouseman, to rake away the Plaintitrs - propertyin general. :Herbert.was called to corroborate this testimony, but did not alipear. Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, for the Plaintlti, and Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, fur the Defendant, very , .ably supported the interests of their respettive Clients. It was pointed out by 'the fprmer, - in his reply, that the case of the Plaintiff was - maile out by the three first Witnesses; and, that the Defendant's evidence, as far as it was material,' went • only to remove the 'eflea of the festimony of Bunior and Hamilton, about the book, and supposing they were mistaken, which he rattle( thought they were-kiot, still the Plaintiff was not to be in - esented from reco vering by the negligence of the Defendant, either in not insuring, or in not having the item of the insurance of the trust goods in his memorandum book. , . ________ _Sir J. MANSFIELD (Chief Justice) gave a very clear and distina stituniary: of the ca:e, atter which the Jury, having consulted together for a few minutes, found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 10871. SHERIFFS' OFFICE, LOLENIAN-STREET.• LIBEL: SMITH V. DICIi.ENSON. lie. C - URViOOD stated, tlyat this was an action r r or • a Libel against' the Plaintiff, as one of the Elders and' Parish Es ate Comtuittee of the Parish of St. Saviour, Southwark.; to which the Defendant had not plead : ed, but suffered judgment to. go by default. , then read the 'libel, which was in the foim of a, printed letter from the Defendaht,,addressed to the • • j parish at large ; in which in most. gross terms he had ,accused the Committee :of Estates, - and the, Plaintiff-in particular, with fraud, iMpoSition, ex tortion; and misconduCt in their office. For'this the Plaintiff laid his datriaores at 20001. ' Mr. MARkYATT then detailed the circumstances of the case as follows :--The Defendant held a ' house of the Parish for 21 years, and his lease ex , pired at Mid , :ummer 1.807. Just before it expired, he made pr. , pcisals foirenewing his lease, and instead . of 36i. per aimum, Which was the, old rent, he of fer,:d au advanced refit 4:424. Thp Committee re- , it-:to their Surveyor, andunder his advice they . (14,11 - landed 521. which the'Defendaht - refused. Upon 4his the Parish advertised. the honse; and posted up hand-bills, not ilying that it was to be let, as well as and appointed a day for receiving propOsals. At the day appointed the CoMmittee met, and only tWo -- sealed proposals were sent in. 'Upon which Mr. Smith, the Plaintiff,' went out, and himself sent in a proposal: They being then all ,Opened, the Plaintiff-was fnund the highest,bidder, proposing to give 521. tos. per annum, and today out ,two rUm.; dred pounds in repairs in ten years. , The Defendant proposed only 431.46." per,annum, and another per son 241.. After the busi-ness was over, the 'Defend- ant was angry at his being outbid, and desired a friend to intercede with Smith to let him have the house. Smith', said he did not want the house,, he only took it because he was determined what was intended for a Charitable fund should not be put into the 'pockets of others by, being improperly under-let ; • and therefore if - the Defendant would give 201. to the Charity School, as au atonement for his per verseness, he 'wt iird - relinluiSh to him. the bargains, and he should stand. in his shoes. The Defendant acceded to thiS, and paid the 201.; afterwards he retracted, would not ei;.ecute thelease, and distribut ed 750 copies of the Libel complained Of; 'in Which he most grossly abused the - Plaintiff and all the other Members of the Committee. The several mi nutes forming the case were read. Mr. Bui,Lotx, for the Defendant, addressed the Jury in a very . able speech, in mitigation'gfdarnages, contending that he had acted in a.mornent of irrita tion, tiuder_the falSe - impression that he:had been harshly treated by the Committee, and observed, that Mr: Smith could have suffered no real injury from the publication ; and he therefore trusted the Jury would not 'think it'a case for any serious Juty,returned, damages 1001. POLICE. GuiLDHALL.---Yesterday came on to be heard, before Mr. Alderman SHAW, the argUments on an information lodged by Mr. H:l2,ne, all attorney, against Mr.,G. lkoodfail, printer, under the At of-. Ais present Majesty, " For the better preventit)it of treasonable., seditious, and immoral publications," obliges printers, -ULder a peoalty - of 201: tai re gister their printing-houses, to attic their narnes ro :all publications printed by them resp.adively, to re tain one copy of each, publication , so printed, to ge ther with the manuscript, and to. write thereof the name of the person by'w lino - ) they may be employed, that the same Inr.i . y be prodUced in' evidence before a Magistrate, in support of any information - lodged in such case. _ _ _ fall, the Magistrate iv - as pleased to quash the infer= nation for the present, not...upoii-the merits of tij e case, which were not argued, but prima facie oirn the informality in the pleadings argued br.i.Nlr. Gua - NEI% ' The Alderman, :hoyever, added, that it wra not his wish to interpose 'his 'decisiOn in the . present • instance, with' any view'to defeat substantial jusucer -but.to leave the party at liberty to amend the-plead ings, and to receive a new information, it, Mier con sultation between ,the Defendant's Coweel and ,14 Majesty's Attorney and SOljeitor General; it shot Aid be deemed expedient, to proceed further in the case. .After the Defendant's Counsel, Mr. GuatAY and f. Mr. BOL LAND, withdrew, Mr. 1 - 1341.1 e determination to proCeed with, five other- new in formations against Mr. Woodtall ; and. Mr. W'° LEY, his Counsel, moved the MagistrAe-who n" r , took the chair, Alderman Sir MA'ITOEW 13LON HAM, for a fresh summons to Mr. Woodtall -upon another gronnd, namely;-to - call' upon him to produce th t printed copy he was bound to retain, together with -the mabuscript, and, the name of the party who I:iv. employed him, under the penalty of 201. upon de7 fault. . Mr. WOodfal), in-the absence of his Counsel, the want of . Whose aid he regretted On this occasion, ob' served, that, in his humble understanding .of the .A 6 t. in question, by whiCh Iris prof•e-sional,'condud v . 3 5. to be dirthed, its purview, as se+ ont" in its prealtiW e ' was .direded. solely .against publications of a.tre 3, “ l " able, seditious, or innuoal nature, - caleu.aled cite disturbance - , or to conveTh f e_ taggior ous- or immoral purposes. - Now,. the instrol li : ' l l ,. which theintbrmer charged with having P'" / I , ed;,cOntained °thing,. as he cOnceived, of any, s l . l :' tendency ; and therefore ; et ea if he had. prinie d I , l° which remained for, the intormei\ to prove,. he aPP I ',;. bonded there could be .rio.criotinality whiCh occasion tiartaiiricUr the ,penalties of the Act. 11 . 1 ' 13 even suppoiing • there might be ground to charge h'' with the. printing, he would, in . the present stage the bUsiness, appeal to the good sense of the Al" ° g s t i strate, whether, in defeet•of proof upon' the P arl , 4 the informer, thd party accused was to be oblige`!' under a perialky,, to produce the sole evidence fOr own criunnationi -Mr. WIGL, Et.saidi he doubted net that he s ao- 0 be able to prove that Mr. •Woodfail could1.1;111 'diffictilty whatever in producing the matters requ' l ':: ed, any more than he should in proving hits printer, and - ifhe did - produce them, no Pen' tl could attach upon him, and no 'hardship . conki sue. He. did not call on Mr. - Woodfall to ;hew 1 . 11 ,`"' the papers', but only to produt— them to the . 4er trate - tor' his guidance, at- the Act-- required,' that he might be thereby aided in his decision. • Mr. Hague said, he had to proposean alteruatl%„:_. which would free Mr. Woodiall from, all trouble or difficulty in the case, if.hewoold fWor make affidavit, that he was nut e n iplOyed-direelY . indireally by - the Dujie of Sussex to print this paV e ::e Or that the Duke of - Sussex had no knowledg e the matter, he - would relinquish all •ftirther proc.c e `' - . logs against • Cl • Mr. Drt.Loz;, althoUgh he :waS not,.of CO O for Mr. Woodfall, - yet; -as a beg in t a lc{ - leave to observe, that although' his Learned Mr. WIGLEir professed not to- call for - such (1 0 ; 1- 4 ments as those stared for his own inforw3tion , was obviously for the !impose :of 'influenbfug, judgment of the aud' cal 03 1 2 r Woodfall to produce evidence for lion, in order to harass hill) I . :lor.rn4tio, f "" t ps ;He could say, on the Oart 1.1 . 2, for whom he attended,' that he could-',have no to interrupt ,the operation .of the iaw, or -to any concealments hat. eduld:have such. - a tetv i In the latter suggestion' Mr-. WiciE7r.,4ruc`i `lose contended,: that a Mr. .WboofaU• ebtrse 't" r at Q t compliance, with the diiium . of the ph ial Tarlunnent, • or tne altertiMive .proposed icbip •Ilag,ue,. he could not fairly: coliptain of 1 10 • • in being 'obliged to pay thr-Tenaity of 2 , 1 cht 'be - ithrritcw BLOXLIAM, hnwever, thou,; iles t could not. decide upon the case, .witboat tile Il ea tai` evidence being before .and there:tote u sed issue, the summons for Mr. Woodtall, •a 5 P r" by llr. Wigley. d till • 11 - 10 further hearing was then po.itpoll e vo , Thursday next, notice of which- was to c01f",,,04 nicated to his Royal Higliness the ,Doke of Su' in order that he. may attend. ,o• sum ATIVS. CRA,VP.sENB, DECEMBER tj. ..,, 5' 0 ~ . r Passed. by- .- the Londoil l'ac!,et, Sit,•.htne , im; fr (). 5' , Übe's; Gallant Scheiner„ Shntil, from A..ot.t; 1-1,!ro , ,f.i, , ~.. vehs,"Aimweil, tio, , g 4 Progress, l'aris! . , irus,) , ::- 1 . , „1' ~ Jur,' ilnd Redmis. , n, Gieen,t;ifin Qiivbec , Pla,,“, 0 '' ll '.l" son, •Peggy, Edingkm, 'Maria, Uioti; iiivi • ale - Vo l ' - Ecar, from ,Gottenuurgh.! S.oled--,the iVlalia, Wilard, fur 1)uldio. ______-----". -- BIR fir . or-, pH On' Tllursd4y. in Cloncester-place, New Road , - , of Thomas Jeans, hsq. of a Soil. • _ 1 1i., - ,// ) 1.,3tc1y, at In. mess, th;':. 1.,a4 of Laugll!..ul l' l ' ch ` Esq:ot &Sun. . ------ .-11 Irlii 1:11. 7 1). • te" ,t Iv ij• Lately, the Rev. Thomas 'cit: w kilts, D. I). sOn ' l " ..t 1 I J" llishor,i R“ppee.' to A,tiss, EUX,•,ltilll6ll7:a of •i'li'' ' ' Esq. of Steptteo'b Gwen, 'Dtibtlit. • (hi the 13th illt. at Ptitcly.httct•Ae, Mr. Roi'l•' t • I '' '' '' ''' :; ; Of Sliver-hill; to Ailb..i MA •• ,•tll''• • • t , of t c ''' 64., Ji...a1 , ...i1l . i L . ,titk-halt. , ----- .. , /....i • ti jig' On Tuesday last, suddmly, at his hoot:e., T0i,,1,1,t0,:,,it,. Mht'licsex ,. the Iti:1:t Hon. the Lail ot A ti,io , , V 0 `": . Aphrian, Ih•ron ot I;.i:lyrnow, ',;n•tilt . 6:',11, veer 0 1 . 1;is •I'''',; : i.a .. , * On. "1 hur - sday 7 last, at Kicin••nci, Suriej, t:L , ..41 , • den, fish. ‘.• , , tl' S 'n • • Lately, at Castle:DaAson in the' CountY of Derr'', : 3 . •A' _tr:Lth year of her age,. Mrs. ' Mary Richaids,;ll. Si=' - ''' b .'" tecdied to her grave by. her chiluTen, gr.:oft. chiltire:), 1,0 6ra. , .d.childiett, and ;A- N great r,rand.ctiiktrt.n. , tr ,6 A few.days aAo; in tho neigiihouthO,xl Of,,Keninuirt,_.,„,,i, Barony PariSh - , at the ag::•• cit 81, Matthew A rbuck t.f, ptV pr Ott the 2ti inst. at• Blackhurn, at the advanced age v 0 , 0" Richard Carrat'iice, Gt I(bchester.bridge, who., .77/, , , , ,t 3 .: since, lost his s',4ht by t: . e small, pox.. Icl tile y , ' 0 1 , 0 5 when, in his 7oth year, he Walked from I>lackb•no ~ t _ ,, )li i ehester, „in Hampshire, iipwards of zoo tililest I.° v.' l ''''; son, and Ousii , ,l a liand.cart bef,ire him all tfie..v•t)•i.,c44 tP. short time beture his death, he 'could contrive ::,) r''' smallest needles. . .- , , • ~ . PRICE CF 105E0:451:10,15, 4s• 55. pr. e YESTERDAY. Indii Stock, Exclieq, Bills, 3 6s• 1 7 ' °mutual, r .1. Cent. Imperial 3 per Ccut• 61, Ditto Ann. OReningi‘6_,....,6:l, Bank. Stock, 2.36 avy i . por Cent. shut !fish 5 per cent: 4 per Cent. 811 i per Cent. Red. 65 3 per vent. Cons. shut Bank L. Ann. ►8